• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Focuser smoothness on NL Pure? (2 Viewers)

Maljunulo

Well-known member
All this means means is that we can best appreciate a wider FOV when viewing subjects further away from us, than we can with subjects that are close up. I hope this makes sense.
Okay, I follow you, but I'll have to think about whether I agree with your conclusion that one appreciates a wider field the farther one is from the object being viewed.
 

dries1

Member
Depth of field is not a major factor for me to consider a binoculars ! However, I compared the depth of field of the NL 12x42 to the NV 10x42 and SLC 15x56, I found the NL provided a much more sharpness of the same views behind or in front of the point zero ! For me it's an excellent for a high power bino. Of cause, can't compare to the less power NL 8x. It's very subjective! If you are in photography, you sure know depth of field is very useful for landscape but for portrait or street photography, sharpness of the field of view is the least important. Leica for sure know very well about this with their premium bino with a big sweet spot but fuzzy toward the edges, all would contribute to the whole picture which is excellent 3-D depth of views!
"Don't forget that the 12x42 will have far less DOF than the 10x42. That's the reason why I would never use a 12x42 as my main binocular.

If you want to see a lot more details, get a scope".

Hermann

I am in agreement with the statement from Hermann.
 

jcnguyen09

Well-known member
Thanks for the interesting debate! I just revised the original text "excellent depth of field for an 12x format..." that way other members who later read the message don't confuse and feel that this guy probably doesn't know what he is talking about like Dries1 has thought!
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Baby Doc and Maljunulo, this may help your above conversation re FOV, angles and triangles... This a spread sheet, from this spring, where I was thinking about modern choices and wanting a more realistic take of FOV. Col G-J was for giggles, as I hadn't played with trig in awhile and wanted to demonstrate that simple percent works just fine, (col C&K).

As well, I rambled on in a not to coherent way here couple days ago,

Swarovski Swarovision EL 10x42 vs Zeiss Victory SF 10x42​

see #13
 

Attachments

  • FOV - simplified.pdf
    80.3 KB · Views: 36
Last edited:

DrewskiMT

Observer
I agree with Hermann too, but I dislike a one-eyed view to the point where I pretty much figure that if I can't see it very well with my binocular, I'll look for something closer. (or bigger)

If you have small binoculars, just look at bigger birds.
Or Option C... Maven 18x56 on a tripod or window pan head... razor thin DOF, but not too thin for birding and hunting.
 

DrewskiMT

Observer
Baby Doc and Maljunulo, this may help your above conversation re FOV, angles and triangles... This a spread sheet, from this spring, where I was thinking about modern choices and wanting a more realistic take of FOV. Col G-J was for giggles, as I hadn't played with trig in awhile and wanted to demonstrate that simple percent works just fine, (col C&K).

As well, I rambled on in a not to coherent way here couple days ago,

Swarovski Swarovision EL 10x42 vs Zeiss Victory SF 10x42​

see #13
Very cool! Thank you for sharing!
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
Baby Doc and Maljunulo, this may help your above conversation re FOV, angles and triangles... This a spread sheet, from this spring, where I was thinking about modern choices and wanting a more realistic take of FOV. Col G-J was for giggles, as I hadn't played with trig in awhile and wanted to demonstrate that simple percent works just fine, (col C&K).

As well, I rambled on in a not to coherent way here couple days ago,

Swarovski Swarovision EL 10x42 vs Zeiss Victory SF 10x42​

see #13
Sorry Grampa, if you consider that a "simplification" you and I do not use the same words to mean or describe the same things.

It is an angle, pure and simple. If one insists on terms like "3D field of view" (which I have seen) it is a cone, the apex angle of which is quoted as FoV, with all the properties of every other cone. Obviously the farther from the apex you transect any cone, the larger the resultant circle will be. I think that is what you are getting at, but I can't be sure.
 
Last edited:

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Maljunulo,
Wasn't aware I'd used the word simplification, either above or in the linked thread. Checked, dont see it. I think the answer to your question is in the chart which calculated linear FOV at 50 yards (2 ways*) and square area at the same distance combined with the small crude chart i typed into the EL vs SF thread #13, quoted, above, that used 100 yards.

Excerpted from the latter at 100 yards, heres FOV and square area.

--------------FOV---------Sq Area---% bigger than EL
EL 1042------33.6'--------887sf------- -
SF 1042----- 36'----------1018sf-------15%
Nl 1042------39.9'--------1250sf-------41%

From the attached chart in #127 above, here's the data for 50 yards, without the SF 1042 as that seems not so relevant to your question, wasn't part of the thinking for that chart, and I'm feeling lazy.

--------------FOV---------Sq Area
EL 1042------16.8'--------221.7sf
Nl 1042------19.95'-------312.6sf

As to terms that others like to use like "3D Field of View," I get and share your confusion. Nor do I see how that relates to this bit of math. You can see you are correct as you go from 50 to 100 both the linear FOV and Square Area do get bigger. A diagram of this attempting to depict the idea, would reveal a cone. But we dont see a cone looking through a bino, right? We see a circle. Im less excited about the apparent slam dunk of square area over the common, industry used, FOV. I get the numbers are sure impressive, but as I tried to write in that ramble, the whole idea of square area as a 100% of the time used thing is less clear. This latter doesnt impact your question in 131, though.

*to the chart. Column E is 50 yard square area, the thing you were asking about. Columns C and K are the linear FOV adjusted to 50 and 100 yards, from Col B/1000 yards). Columns G-J as I wrote, were done for the fun of it, as I hadn't played with trigonometry in a while, and wanted to show that trig and simple percentage were essentially the same. See Col C and Col J. The difference here is from rounding off.

You wrote, the apex angle of which is quoted as FoV. That's correct it is the "apex" angle, (aka eyeball). But as we have FOV commonly used - the linear thing. This would then be angular FOV. (see col G).

Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss more.
 
Last edited:

Loud Green Man

Well-known member
NDhunter, in the interest of full disclosure - yes or no - have you ever in your life looked through the 12x42 NL?
Whether he has or not allow me to confirm, with 100% certainty, that the viewing experience will be enhanced by a similar degree if one deploys a single eye-level length stick to support said bins.

Even 15-power may be ‘controlled’ by this simple method of stabilisation and at zero cost if you live near woodland.

K
 

BabyDov

Well-known member
Supporter
United States
Whether he has or not allow me to confirm, with 100% certainty, that the viewing experience will be enhanced by a similar degree if one deploys a single eye-level length stick to support said bins.

Even 15-power may be ‘controlled’ by this simple method of stabilisation and at zero cost if you live near woodland.

K
Could you post a photo showing how this is done? Does the stick rest on your shoulder while the binoculars loosely rest on the stick?

Do you imagine your stick will work better at stabilization than the optional head rest? Thanks.
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
BabyDoc, I believe Loud Green Man is suggesting an experiment to sample the benefit of a monopod, via an appropriate sized stick found on the ground. Something that would be from the ground to your eye level. Not only will this entail finding said stick but also some way to actually hold the binos at the top in a stable way, which may take some futzing. FYI, check out B&H for monopods. They are potentially a more handy alternative to a tripod and do take the same bino holders we've talked about...
 

rpg51

Well-known member
Supporter
A stick from the woods will work wonders. Of course if you are on the tundra no sticks to be found. I sometimes use support even with my 8x42. It enhances the view and makes the full FOV more useable. This is true no matter what optics you are using.
 

Loud Green Man

Well-known member
Could you post a photo showing how this is done? Does the stick rest on your shoulder while the binoculars loosely rest on the stick?

Do you imagine your stick will work better at stabilization than the optional head rest? Thanks.
Hi

I will happily put up a picture to demonstrate the ‘hold’ I adopt. The only downside is that after many years of deploying the bins in this fashion you might notice light marking on the side of objective armouring that is in light contact with the stick. This of course might be mitigated by slipping a length of cycle intertube of stitched leather over the stick in question.

I do not rest the bins in a V shaped cradle at the top of the stick.

I’m convinced this will deliver significant improvement over use of the NL’s headrest and suggest physics supports (no pun intended) my view.

LGM
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Hi

I will happily put up a picture to demonstrate the ‘hold’ I adopt. The only downside is that after many years of deploying the bins in this fashion you might notice light marking on the side of objective armouring that is in light contact with the stick. This of course might be mitigated by slipping a length of cycle intertube of stitched leather over the stick in question.

I do not rest the bins in a V shaped cradle at the top of the stick.

I’m convinced this will deliver significant improvement over use of the NL’s headrest and suggest physics supports (no pun intended) my view.

LGM
Troubadoris and I use walking poles to keep us steady when exploring the coasts of Scotland and I have many times used my pole to steady my binos or my DSLR simply by letting my left hand grip both the pole (somewhere down its length, as appropriate) and instrument. It is not as steady as a tripod of course but it can be of great help, for example when sitting down and observing bird or otter behaviour for an extended period, I can reduce shoulder and arm fatigue by telescoping the walking pole to a shorter length and using it to steady my binos and also to support my arms. Using the walking pole for this just means I don't have to carry an additional item such as a genuine photographic monopod, so it is an effective solution. The pole isn't long enough for me to stand upright with it but sitting on a rock or wall or on the ground is usually possible.

Lee
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top